1.Title, director and release year?
- Energy Crossroads, Christopher Fauchere, 2007
2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
- This film concentrates on our dependence on fossil fuels and the need to (at minimum) diversify our energy resources. It touches on how our underestimation of the amount of energy we use adversely affects the efforts to transition to more sustainable sources. The film also gives a few examples of possible changes that can and should be made to diversify our energy sources.
3.What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- As many documentaries do, this film draws out cultural/psychological habits that prevent our nation from making sustainable change. Examples of this, as depicted in the film, are racing cars and driving monster trucks for entertainment, as well as the convenience of and dependence on fast food (as if it were actually nutritional). Essentially our way of thinking has led us to take natural resources for granted, almost unknowing that their supply is limited and will quickly be depleted.
- This film also does an excellent job of drawing out the political implications of our need for change. One of the experts even touched on the hypothetical situation in which we failed to make the change where the United States and China (being the most industrialized nations) ended up fighting for the world’s remaining oil. Although hypothetical, the situation may very well materialize if change is not made within the next several decades.
- Also linked to the political implications are the educational implications of making sustainable change. The film pointed out that our government is short-sighted in their decision making and it is a paradigm that needs changing. One expert stated, “We need new thinking and new approaches.” This speaks to the need to change the way we educate our youth. Another expert went on to point out that the idea of having a prosperous economy without slaves seemed impossible. We face the same type of hard-headed thinking today with the idea of having a prosperous economy without environmental destruction, except this time around we know it IS very possible and we know the steps we need to take to make it happen.
4.What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The part of the film I found most compelling was the portion in which it was shown how economists have begun to back up the idea of global warming. It was interesting to see because having an economist state that global warming is bad from a cost perspective would surely grab the attention of the industry corporate world, which has long fought the existence of global warming. This may actually get those people motivated by profit to make a change that is better for the environment. Although they would most likely not being doing it for the sake of the environment, hopefully it will create long-lasting change nevertheless.
5.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
- Towards the end of the film, many solutions were suggested and they were all portrayed as all-around great solutions, without faults. However, after seeing the Matrix presentations, it is disappointing to see that all the positives were presented without mention of the unintended consequences some of them have. For example, they suggested the use of efficient light bulbs, but as shown in a Matrix presentation, their proper disposal is vital otherwise the chemicals may leak into landfills. Also, the suggestion for electric cars doesn’t mention how the production of their batteries is bad for the environment as well.
6.What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- This film compels me to seek out information on the education system of countries that have managed to make the sustainable changes necessary and see how it differs from our current system. It could just be that other nations are culturally more aware and open-minded than our nation is and our education system simply needs to make our youth worldlier, as far as thinking beyond their own lives and seeing the consequences their actions have on others.
7.What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
- This film easily addresses older audiences, it does not quite cater to younger audiences because some of the topics are more complicated and difficult to comprehend without prior education of them (like the ice core technology and how the bubbles in the ice can provide atmospheric information from decades ago).
- It also addresses innovators who are making the effort to create change through inventing new systems and industries that are more sustainable in practice than the ones we are currently addicted to.
8.What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- The film discusses suggestions that can be made on the part of manufacturers and industry as far as being more efficient in the way they and the products they make use energy. An example of this was a suggestion to redesign the car. By redesigning the car it could potentially reduce gasoline consumption by 2/3, not to mention if we create plug-in hybrids, using garage as mini-factory with solar panels, which would drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption.
9.What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
- I believe a more in depth description of the technology used to monitor the environmental implications of our fossil fuel consumption would have been interesting to see, just so audiences understand how the correlation is made and readily understand how a reduction in consumption would affect the environment.
1. Title, director and release year?
- Energy Crossroads, Christopher Fauchere, 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
- This film concentrates on our dependence on fossil fuels and the need to (at minimum) diversify our energy resources. It touches on how our underestimation of the amount of energy we use adversely affects the efforts to transition to more sustainable sources. The film also gives a few examples of possible changes that can and should be made to diversify our energy sources.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- As many documentaries do, this film draws out cultural/psychological habits that prevent our nation from making sustainable change. Examples of this, as depicted in the film, are racing cars and driving monster trucks for entertainment, as well as the convenience of and dependence on fast food (as if it were actually nutritional). Essentially our way of thinking has led us to take natural resources for granted, almost unknowing that their supply is limited and will quickly be depleted.
- This film also does an excellent job of drawing out the political implications of our need for change. One of the experts even touched on the hypothetical situation in which we failed to make the change where the United States and China (being the most industrialized nations) ended up fighting for the world’s remaining oil. Although hypothetical, the situation may very well materialize if change is not made within the next several decades.
- Also linked to the political implications are the educational implications of making sustainable change. The film pointed out that our government is short-sighted in their decision making and it is a paradigm that needs changing. One expert stated, “We need new thinking and new approaches.” This speaks to the need to change the way we educate our youth. Another expert went on to point out that the idea of having a prosperous economy without slaves seemed impossible. We face the same type of hard-headed thinking today with the idea of having a prosperous economy without environmental destruction, except this time around we know it IS very possible and we know the steps we need to take to make it happen.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The part of the film I found most compelling was the portion in which it was shown how economists have begun to back up the idea of global warming. It was interesting to see because having an economist state that global warming is bad from a cost perspective would surely grab the attention of the industry corporate world, which has long fought the existence of global warming. This may actually get those people motivated by profit to make a change that is better for the environment. Although they would most likely not being doing it for the sake of the environment, hopefully it will create long-lasting change nevertheless.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
- Towards the end of the film, many solutions were suggested and they were all portrayed as all-around great solutions, without faults. However, after seeing the Matrix presentations, it is disappointing to see that all the positives were presented without mention of the unintended consequences some of them have. For example, they suggested the use of efficient light bulbs, but as shown in a Matrix presentation, their proper disposal is vital otherwise the chemicals may leak into landfills. Also, the suggestion for electric cars doesn’t mention how the production of their batteries is bad for the environment as well.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- This film compels me to seek out information on the education system of countries that have managed to make the sustainable changes necessary and see how it differs from our current system. It could just be that other nations are culturally more aware and open-minded than our nation is and our education system simply needs to make our youth worldlier, as far as thinking beyond their own lives and seeing the consequences their actions have on others.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
- This film easily addresses older audiences, it does not quite cater to younger audiences because some of the topics are more complicated and difficult to comprehend without prior education of them (like the ice core technology and how the bubbles in the ice can provide atmospheric information from decades ago).
- It also addresses innovators who are making the effort to create change through inventing new systems and industries that are more sustainable in practice than the ones we are currently addicted to.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- The film discusses suggestions that can be made on the part of manufacturers and industry as far as being more efficient in the way they and the products they make use energy. An example of this was a suggestion to redesign the car. By redesigning the car it could potentially reduce gasoline consumption by 2/3, not to mention if we create plug-in hybrids, using garage as mini-factory with solar panels, which would drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
- I believe a more in depth description of the technology used to monitor the environmental implications of our fossil fuel consumption would have been interesting to see, just so audiences understand how the correlation is made and readily understand how a reduction in consumption would affect the environment.
[posted May 1, 2010]